get_monitor_chart

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'get' but does not describe any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens with invalid dates. This is minimal disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence of 9 words, front-loading the purpose with no unnecessary words. Every word adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and similar sibling tools exist, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the returned chart contains (e.g., time series format, metrics beyond triggers), leaving the agent without sufficient context to interpret the output.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a brief description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; 'trigger statistics' remains undefined. Since schema already describes parameters, the value added by the description is marginal.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get daily trigger statistics for a monitor over a date range' clearly states the action (get), the resource (daily trigger statistics for a monitor), and the scope (over a date range). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_monitor_logs and get_monitor_stats by specifying the aggregated daily nature.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when daily aggregated statistics are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus similar siblings like get_monitor_stats, which might provide overall stats. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.